Radeon R5 M430 vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTS 160M outperforms Radeon R5 M430 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 882 | 892 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.15 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GS1 | Mars |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years old) | 1 May 2016 (7 years old) |
| Current price | $230 | $749 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 160M has 200% better value for money than R5 M430.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 320 |
| CUDA cores | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 955 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 19 billion/sec | 17.10 |
| Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | 659.2 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon R5 M430 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 1746 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 GB/s | 16 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTS 160M outperforms Radeon R5 M430 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTS 160M outperforms Radeon R5 M430 by 5% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon R5 M430 outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 18% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 14−16
−7.1%
| 15
+7.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTS 160M and R5 M430 compete in popular games:
- R5 M430 is 7.1% faster than GTS 160M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTS 160M is 50% faster than the R5 M430.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 160M is ahead in 4 tests (11%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (89%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.75 | 1.67 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 1 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 160M and Radeon R5 M430.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
